S. Sujatha, J.

1. This appeal is by the insurer whereas the cross-objections is by the claimant challenging the Judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Srirangapatna, [the 'Tribunal', for short] in MVC No.520/2009.

2. The facts in brief are that the parents of the deceased Shivamurthy alias papu alias Shivamallu made a claim for compensation contending that the deceased was a labourer travelling along with other workers in a tractor-trailer bearing KA-11/T-8328 and KA-11/T- 8329, being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner capsized, due to which the iron rods carried in the vehicle for agricultural operations fell on the deceased, as a result of this, he died on the spot. The insurer entered appearance and contested the matter. The Tribunal after evaluating the evidence, awarded total compensation of Rs.2,90,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. fastening the liability on the appellant-insurer herein. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal, whereas the claimant has filed cross-objections seeking enhancement of the compensation.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant placing reliance on Rule 2(b), (c) and (h) of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 ('CMV Rules' for short) would contend that tractor-trailer is not a transport vehicle. It is contended that Rule 100 of Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 ('KMV Rules' for short) do not apply to the persons carried in the non-transport vehicle. Elaborating the arguments, learned counsel contends that clause (i) and (II) of Rule 100(1) of the KMV Rules permits one person to be carried in light transport goods vehicle having registered laden weight less than 990 kgs; not more than three in any other light transport vehicle goods vehicle and in any goods vehicle not more than 7 persons are allowed to be carried. It is submitted that Rule 100(4) of the KMV Rules specify that no persons shall be carried in any goods vehicle, unless an area or not less than 0.40 square metre of the floor of the vehicle is kept open for each person. Thus, it is submitted that tractor-trailer being not a carriage vehicle, risk of any person carried in any capacity other than the driver would not be covered under the policy at Ex.R1. Alternatively, it is contended that proviso to Section 147(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, ('MV Act' for short) contemplates that the policy shall not be required to cover liability in respect of death, arising out of and in the course of employment of the employee to a person insured by the policy or in respect of bodily injury sustained by such an employee arising out of and in the course of his employment other than liability arising under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 ('W.C. Act', for short) in respect of the death of, or bodily injury to, any such employee;

(a) engaged in driving the vehicle, or

(b) if it is a public service vehicle engaged as conductor of the vehicle or in examining tickets on the vehicle, or

(c) if it is a goods carriage, being carried in the vehicle.

4. It is submitted that the risk of a person carried in a tractor-trailer utmost to be restricted to the liability arising under the W.C. Act and cannot be expanded.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant places reliance on the following Judgments:

(I) The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. D. Laxman and others reported in ILR 2006 KAR 4355;

(II) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Narayan Dhar Swain and another reported in 1999(1) TAC 613

6. Per contra, Sri. K. P. M. Varghese, learned counsel appearing for the claimant defending the impugned Judgment and award submits that the policy issued by the insurer was Miscellaneous and special type of vehicle package policy, no compensation was claimed under the provisions of the W.C. Act for the employment accident, on the other hand, the accident in question was a road traffic accident, the claiman